buster

2. Regardless of the opinions of reasonable people (of which I consider you one), Falwell is a conservative with a huge following. To me that makes him a prominent conservative.

3. I never said that there was not noxious rhetoric coming from both ends of the political spectrum. As a matter of fact, I said the opposite.

4. Don't tell me to step out of my own shoes. I read, I watch, I listen, I learn, I think, I make judgments for myself. You remind me that we may have different standards for what is noxious (that's fine, we probably do -- I probably have a higher threshhold in this regard) and then complain because I make my judgments based on my standards? bull. You're the one who reminds me time and time again about how much more well-informed I am than you are. I have no idea whether or not that is true, but I have a hard time thinking that you're somehow more open-minded than I am simply because you have not chosen to pay as much attention.

I don't know how you consider Falwell to be a "prominent" Conservative. He's nothing more than an interest-groupie, and pretty much a joke to everyone but the religious right (the last time he made serious headlines, other than this law school which most consider a joke, is when he accused Tinky Winky of being gay. Not exactly the most stellar, influential record.). What about prominent people like Michael Moore on the left? What about Soros? I could go on. There's pretty noxious rhetoric coming from all corners of the political spectrum.

And noxious depends on the perspective too. The things you find noxious, I less so. The things I find noxious, you less so. You tend to forget this. It's a basic fact though. You've got to step outside your own shoes on occassion and recognize this as fact.

I think you're general point regarding the tone of political debate is a fair one, and I agree that there are assholes on both sides of every debate. My point, not that it was particularly subtle, is that I think there's a difference between people like Falwell and people who may offend you in person on a day-to-day basis. (And, yes, I think there's much more noxious rhetoric from prominent people on the right than there is from prominent people on the left. I suppose we've been down that road before.)

2. Regardless of the opinions of reasonable people (of which I consider you one), Falwell is a conservative with a huge following. To me that makes him a prominent conservative.

3. I never said that there was not noxious rhetoric coming from both ends of the political spectrum. As a matter of fact, I said the opposite.

4. Don't tell me to step out of my own shoes. I read, I watch, I listen, I learn, I think, I make judgments for myself. You remind me that we may have different standards for what is noxious (that's fine, we probably do -- I probably have a higher threshhold in this regard) and then complain because I make my judgments based on my standards? bull. You're the one who reminds me time and time again about how much more well-informed I am than you are. I have no idea whether or not that is true, but I have a hard time thinking that you're somehow more open-minded than I am simply because you have not chosen to pay as much attention.

I don't know how you consider Falwell to be a "prominent" Conservative. He's nothing more than an interest-groupie, and pretty much a joke to everyone but the religious right (the last time he made serious headlines, other than this law school which most consider a joke, is when he accused Tinky Winky of being gay. Not exactly the most stellar, influential record.). What about prominent people like Michael Moore on the left? What about Soros? I could go on. There's pretty noxious rhetoric coming from all corners of the political spectrum.

And noxious depends on the perspective too. The things you find noxious, I less so. The things I find noxious, you less so. You tend to forget this. It's a basic fact though. You've got to step outside your own shoes on occassion and recognize this as fact.

I think you're general point regarding the tone of political debate is a fair one, and I agree that there are assholes on both sides of every debate. My point, not that it was particularly subtle, is that I think there's a difference between people like Falwell and people who may offend you in person on a day-to-day basis. (And, yes, I think there's much more noxious rhetoric from prominent people on the right than there is from prominent people on the left. I suppose we've been down that road before.)

Just one quick question on the informed thing though. You obviously spend a large amount of time on the internet. I do too, but aside from this site I just check CNN.com and Drudgereport.com once a day, check the headlines, and check my email. Aside from that, in terms of my media exposure, (other than the debates and Buffy and Angel) I watch no television and rarely watch movies. I don't read the newspaper, except for scanning the headlines of the local one to see what's going on in my neighborhood. I don't spend my free time researching what may or may not be true on the national political level; I'm lucky if I get past the headlines.

I'd rather spend my time on other things; like understanding differing viewpoints, and understanding why people believe what they believe and think what they do. Right now I'm engaging in a study of the Quran, and taking notes as I go. I just finished Sissela Bok's "Lying" which explored the ethical dimensions of deception... before that I read Paine's "Rights of Man" and Nietzsche's "The Antichrist" and "Thus spoke Zarathustra". That's where my free time goes, along with songwriting. If we're talking philosophy or viewpoint, political or otherwise, I just might be your man. But I have neither the time nor the patience for an overload of current events. They bore me. I'm more interested in abstract concepts.

Can I assume you read the daily paper, political journals, and watch daily newscasts? Cause I don't do any of those things.

Just one quick question on the informed thing though. You obviously spend a large amount of time on the internet. I do too, but aside from this site I just check CNN.com and Drudgereport.com once a day, check the headlines, and check my email. Aside from that, in terms of my media exposure, (other than the debates and Buffy and Angel) I watch no television and rarely watch movies. I don't read the newspaper, except for scanning the headlines of the local one to see what's going on in my neighborhood. I don't spend my free time researching what may or may not be true on the national political level; I'm lucky if I get past the headlines.

I'd rather spend my time on other things; like understanding differing viewpoints, and understanding why people believe what they believe and think what they do. Right now I'm engaging in a study of the Quran, and taking notes as I go. I just finished Sissela Bok's "Lying" which explored the ethical dimensions of deception... before that I read Paine's "Rights of Man" and Nietzsche's "The Antichrist" and "Thus spoke Zarathustra". That's where my free time goes, along with songwriting. If we're talking philosophy or viewpoint, political or otherwise, I just might be your man. But I have neither the time nor the patience for an overload of current events. They bore me. I'm more interested in abstract concepts.

Can I assume you read the daily paper, political journals, and watch daily newscasts? Cause I don't do any of those things.

I have more to say about why I suggested you approach things a little differently, but you might overreact, so I'll hold back. If you feel you have to hear it, I'll post what I had posted here before, but if not, no skin off my back.

ZAP

Logged

buster

We seem to be at each other's throats a bit today. I will calmly listen to whatever you have to say as long as you agree to give fair consideration to my response. Feel free to PM me if you would prefer.

I don't "have to hear it," but be assured that I can, despite what I imagine to be your impression of me (), take criticism.

I have more to say about why I suggested you approach things a little differently, but you might overreact, so I'll hold back. If you feel you have to hear it, I'll post what I had posted here before, but if not, no skin off my back.

Nah, I'll hold back and spare you. I've thought better of it. I mean, I may still feel a certain way, but you don't need to hear it. You probably know of your own personality flaws better than I could ever tell you... I'm doing well enough just trying to attend to my own, you don't need my guidance.

We seem to be at each other's throats a bit today. I will calmly listen to whatever you have to say as long as you agree to give fair consideration to my response. Feel free to PM me if you would prefer.

I don't "have to hear it," but be assured that I can, despite what I imagine to be your impression of me (), take criticism.

I have more to say about why I suggested you approach things a little differently, but you might overreact, so I'll hold back. If you feel you have to hear it, I'll post what I had posted here before, but if not, no skin off my back.

ZAP

Logged

buster

Nah, I'll hold back and spare you. I've thought better of it. I mean, I may still feel a certain way, but you don't need to hear it. You probably know of your own personality flaws better than I could ever tell you... I'm doing well enough just trying to attend to my own, you don't need my guidance.